It's a very confused film, ultimately. Singer might have had a clear vision of what he was doing, but the rest of us didn't. What is it? Semi-sequel? Reboot? Use a new cast but retain some old ones, whilst ignoring some of the prequels?

Before you even flick a switch on a camera, your film needs to have a clear purpose.

I agree i was like wait a minute what? how? huh? in certain scenes but ok whatever. SR show some things that i wanted to see superman do and i was glad they show it but the plot should of have been better. But i'm wondering if brandon was talk about doing another superman movie and what does he think now about henry cavill getting the part? lol

LOL, this is so funny.... .Superman Returns, everything wrong with it in 6 mins... it's hilarious... though, i must say, i did enjoy it when it came out, and periodically still pop in my blu-ray to watch the plane rescue scene...

You know come to think of it they should have made the plane scene a different way. Instead of superman stopping the plane from the nose they should of have show him be under it and lifting it up as it's getting close to the stadium and take the plane to an open spot and land it. Because if you think about it all those passengers and all the weight the plane carries everything would be push to the front. They all would of have been dead squish like pancakes i mean cmon now let's be real here.

I know that many fans don't like SR, and many will like MOS, still, SR was a good movie.

Now, Zack Snyder is great at creating visually good looking scenes, still many scenes from SR looked good, I think that there are some shots in MOS that may remind some fans of SR. Visually similar looking scenes (even though in some cases, the context will be different.)

My problem with SR is that to me it has 3 clashing feels. Magical and romantic like the 1930s cartoon, (ie, the parts in the daily planet, the art deco look, mythical/bible-story-like scenes with Superman stopping the plane and island). gritty and realistic like Nolan (having a thug willing to kill lois with a rock, the relationship plot, general darkness of atmosphere, war on tv) and camp and Dean Cain tv show like, such as Luthor with his moll cheating old ladies etc. Sticking with one of those visions would have made a good film, but they didn't mix well.

I know that many fans don't like SR, and many will like MOS, still, SR was a good movie.

Now, Zack Snyder is great at creating visually good looking scenes, still many scenes from SR looked good, I think that there are some shots in MOS that may remind some fans of SR. Visually similar looking scenes (even though in some cases, the context will be different.)

I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing. Specially about the Christ-like pose, which was enough in SR to make a number of fans yell: "SupermanisnotJesuuuuuuuuuuuus!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by doobie

My problem with SR is that to me it has 3 clashing feels. Magical and romantic like the 1930s cartoon, (ie, the parts in the daily planet, the art deco look, mythical/bible-story-like scenes with Superman stopping the plane and island). gritty and realistic like Nolan (having a thug willing to kill lois with a rock, the relationship plot, general darkness of atmosphere, war on tv) and camp and Dean Cain tv show like, such as Luthor with his moll cheating old ladies etc. Sticking with one of those visions would have made a good film, but they didn't mix well.

While I totally agree with you here, the same can be said for STM and SII. Specially the first movie which had different tones all over.

I was as disapointed as the next fan with SR, and am really dismayed that it's kind of retroactively tainting S:TM/SII. But for me the problem is compounded by all the possible ways it could have been good given all the really good elements in the mmix there. Aside from the casting of Lois the actors they chose could have really done some stellar work with a better plot and script. I mean, Spacey as Lex? How do you screw that up? How do you not utilize a legend like Frank Langella? Even if it's for some comic relief. The Daily Planet crew of Lois/Perry/Jimmy are'nt in the slight bit entertaining. This is another in a long list of things that Donner did well that Singer and Co. don'nt even do at all.

What didn't work was Superman going after Lois, the kid's future didn't matter. To Superman it didn't matter to him that the kid would be growing up without his father and mother together. Superman didn't care about the well being of the child, his relationship in wanting Lois was more important than the kids well being and having the kid grow up with his mother and father living together at home. (all of this is before Superman knew kids was his).

Superman flew to their house spying on them, thank god nobody was going to the bathroom or was naked.

He left Earth looking for life on remains of an exploded planet, really, it exploded! How the hell was supposed to find life on the remains of an exploded planet, it exploded!

His ship didn't have shields to protect him from the Kryptonite (from the deleted Return to Krypton sequence), with him collapsing on the floor as his ship neared the debris of the planet. Superman isn't very smart!

He didn't say good bye to Lois because if he did he couldn't leave? What a coward! When she told him how she felt and how he was wrong for leaving her, he gave her a silly grins that she was wrong not seeing it his way! He thought he did nothing wrong, when clearly he did! I know he apologized later on, but earlier he just came across as a dick!

With him moping around that he is alone and actually believing the world doesn't need him, and he can never be one of them and the human world is filled with monstrous deceits, (dialogue used from Brando to put that negative spin on Superman's view of us), where was that hope aspect that is expected and that is what and who Superman is all about, he's not supposed to go all cynical on us, he's supposed to see what's good about us and never give up on us even if we do!

This wasn't a Superman movie it was a Lex and Lois movie, Superman wasn't even the center of his own movie. It was a film were Lois had to decide which guy she wanted, and Lex's and Lois getting most of the lines! Superman barely said anything in the film.

At the end of the film Superman had no pulse after the doctors failed attempts to revive him, then we see him sleeping in the hospital room, how did he come back alive?

Kate Bosworth was to young for the part, it was like a young person trying to act like an older person. Brandon Routh did an impersonation of Christopher Reeve instead of playing his own version of the character. Kevin Spacey seemed disingenuous, it didn't look like he actually was playing a character but walking through the scenes with his disingenuous smile.

What didn't work was Superman going after Lois, the kid's future didn't matter. To Superman it didn't matter to him that the kid would be growing up without his father and mother together. Superman didn't care about the well being of the child, his relationship in wanting Lois was more important than the kids well being and having the kid grow up with his mother and father living together at home.

So when he rescued both Lois and Jason, when he visited Lois's home just to tell him "You will be different, sometimes you'll feel like an outcast, but you'll never be alone" and when Superman told Lois "I'm always around"... you interpreted it as he didn't care for Jason???

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGHulk

Superman flew to their house spying on them, thank god nobody was going to the bathroom or was naked.

It wouldn't have mattered. Superman could have seen that in the distance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGHulk

He left Earth looking for life on remains of an exploded planet, really, it exploded! How the hell was supposed to find life on the remains of an exploded planet, it exploded!

That should have been explained a lot better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGHulk

His ship didn't have shields to protect him from the Kryptonite (from the deleted Return to Krypton sequence), Superman isn't very smart!

Honest question, it is stated that it didn't?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGHulk

He didn't say good bye to Lois because if he did he couldn't leave? What a coward! When she told him how she felt and how he was wrong for leaving her, he gave her a silly grins that she was wrong not seeing it his way! He thought he did nothing wrong, when clearly he did! I know he apologized later on, but earlier he just came across as a dick!

That's another of SR's flaws. Superman didn't need to skip saying good-bye in order to have a Lois Lane angry at him for leaving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGHulk

With him moping around that he is alone and actually believing the world doesn't need him, and he can never be one of them and the human world is filled with monstrous deceits, (dialogue used from Brando to put that negative spin on Superman's view of us), where was that hope aspect that is expected and what who Superman is all about, he's not supposed to go all cynical on us, he's supposed to see what's good about us and never give up on us even if we do!

That's when you have to accept that Superman can't be a steady immutable icon 100% of time and should start having some problems in order to have his character going somewhere. He didn't quit his powers in SII for Lois if he lived in perpetual and steady hope and joy of helping others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGHulk

This wasn't a Superman movie it was a Lex and Lois movie, Superman wasn't even the center of his own movie. It was a film were Lois had to decide which guy she wanted, and Lex's and Lois getting most of the lines! Superman barely said anything in the film.

Superman was plenty in the film and did plenty too. I don't know how Lois being able to choose who to be with is any indicative that this is a movie about her only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGHulk

At the end of the film Superman had no pulse after the doctors failed attempts to revive him, then we see him sleeping in the hospital room, how did he come back alive?

You really have never heard of cases when people lose their pulse and then get it back?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGHulk

Kate Bosworth was to young for the part, it was like a young person trying to act like an older person. Brandon Routh did an impersonation of Christopher Reeve instead of playing his own version of the character. Kevin Spacey seemed disingenuous, it didn't look like he actually was playing a character but walking through the scenes with his disingenuous smile.

Kate was too young. But Routh was supposed to continue Reeve's Superman. I mean, it's a sequel. That should have told you something about it. And I share you complaint about Spacey; I myself thought he would pull a better Lex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

You pretty much hit all the points of what rubbed me most the wrong way about the film. Superman regardless of routh's portrayal was just not likable for those actions you mentioned above.

But Superman has quit his mission in SII. Very un-Superman. Now in MOS he let his father die just like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Frankly that scene where he had his "sky-waltz" with lois while her husband was down in the daily planet made me sick. This guy came off as a home-wrecker.

Well, Lois was the one who - when Superman was still out there and no sign of him coming back - said NO to him when he proposed. Richard pretty much knew what kind of relationship they had.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Singer actually admitted that Returns was more of a love story than anything.

Everything in Donner movies regarding Superman is a love story. Not impressed SR is also one.

My problem with SR is that to me it has 3 clashing feels. Magical and romantic like the 1930s cartoon, (ie, the parts in the daily planet, the art deco look, mythical/bible-story-like scenes with Superman stopping the plane and island). gritty and realistic like Nolan (having a thug willing to kill lois with a rock, the relationship plot, general darkness of atmosphere, war on tv) and camp and Dean Cain tv show like, such as Luthor with his moll cheating old ladies etc. Sticking with one of those visions would have made a good film, but they didn't mix well.

This is, in a nutshell, the main problem I have with it. All these tones try to blend together but they end up feeling cold and alienating. Yes, cold. This is MUCH colder film than MOS is accused of being. Everything feels distant, robotic even. Singer tries so hard to recapture the Donner magic is just feels like a copy of a copy without the actual IT that the Donner films had. There are still moments of the film I greatly enjoy, mainly the action which is well shot and classic Superman stuff, and the overall look of the film is glorious, but everything underneath is just wrong. Spacey is the only thing that gives the film any sort of life or pizzazz when action is not happening.

the problem was everything outside of jason i mean the son of superman had an awesome thing going for it and tristan looked like a kent they could have made a great small story arc with jason choosing a different path then his father and becoming his own superhero but the main plot of the movie ruined everything

I actually saw Superman Returns twice in the theater because I really wanted to like it. Alas although it gave me the plane scene for John Byrne and TAS I've always wanted to see it failed for me otherwise. Superman is my absolute favorite hero but this guy was very unlikeable to me. I hated luthor. The plot was unexciting and a retread that didn't fly for me. In fact Richard was about the only person I liked.

I was given it on DVD but have only watched it once since. It hasn't changed my opinion just solified it.

MOS, however has totally worked for me. Just seen it for the fourth time.

You must not know the whole story then. It was explained why Superman never told Lois he was leaving in the script book as well as the screen test. In both he states that if he saw Lois's face and she asked him not to go then he would have never left. Which is something at the time he felt compelled to do. A lot of the stuff many fans complained about was explained but it is just left on the cutting room floor. As I have stated many times Signer didn't do a bad job IMO he did what many writers have tried to do and that is made him more relate able.

But there was no sufficiently compelling reason to leave at all. This is just a cop out to try to make super selfish reasoning make sense. Fine, have Superman leave and come back 5 years alter. However when he comes back and find Lois engaged, apparently having had a child with her fiancé, who is a good man, he should realize that by not telling her, he lost her, get over it, and move on. I say this as the #1 biggest fan of any and all Lois and Superman marry media (I love the TV show Lois and Clark), but there is a point where one has to move on. And even though Lois was not technically married to Richard, she might as well have been, so Clark should respect that and find some other women to love.

Where I agree: Dude in video says that critics hated Richard. In my experience (and yours, apparently) that’s simply not the case. Even strident critics of SR seemed to like Richard. The complaint was that he was a nicer, nobler guy than Superman. Dude was arguing the wrong thing.

Where I disagree: Richard being a “good man” was an essential aspect to the overall theme of Supes’ alienation. Without the global and mythic responsibilities of a superman, Richard can afford to be a “normal hero” and have the normal life unavailable to Supes. When Lois was in peril, he could devote himself to the single task of rescuing her. On the other hand, Supes had to interrupt his attempt, turn around and attend to earthquake ravaged Metropolis first. His duties are far bigger than Richard’s – even to the point of sacrificing himself to save the world. That’s something that Richard – for all his nobility – could never do.

Allow for a bit of poetry. It's a description of the passing of generations. The "father" recedes into a more passive role (the "son") when his own son assumes the "father" role. In any case, the line is lifted directly from STM. If you hated it in SR, you should reserve equal ridicule for its use in STM.

A fair criticism. But SR had exactly as many "fights" as STM. So, again, as long as you dislike both films for that reason... you're being consistent.

I’d say the SR scheme was more “realistic.” In STM, we’re supposed to believe that after a nuclear blast, and the devastation of California, Lex could satisfy authorities by merely producing the deeds to his legally bought land. In SR, there’s no pretext like that. Lex’s control over nations would be derived by power and the fact that half of them are destroyed – not through implausible legal technicalities.

Well, actually in S:TM, there is the problem that no one would want to live along a coast right by the nuclear fall out.

I don't think S:TM is any less hokey in its plot then SR. The redeeming aspect is that Superman is not a dead-beat Dad, who comes back and decides to disrupt the fairly stable family situation of his son.

On the other hand, I just always hated all the Donner/Singer movies for the "Superman is too much above us" line. I will take "Man of Steel" and any other medium, where they do not send Superman to earth with a mandate he not form normal relations with earthlings. If fire fighters, police men and other first responders can have family lives, then so should Superman.

One of the big problems with SR is Luthor getting out of jail. He was convicted, and then let out on appeal right, or do I have the details wrong. If it was an appeal, then Superman's presence should not have matter at all.

Did it have the power to make some kind of alarm or security system, so your archenemy couldn’t just walk right in to your fortress and learn all your secrets?

If it was that good, Superman should have made a way to prevent Luthor from stealing it. Not only did Superman run off when instead of facing the consequences of having sex with Lois, he didn't even both to secure his technology from megalomaniacs like Luthor.

I really didn't want to go see this film in 2006, so I didn't. I avoided it like the plague. "Lois having Superman's child? No way!" Now, after 5 years I finally decided to see it.

I must admit, having watched this review "What's so bad about Superman Returns?" I agree with most of what he's saying. It is a great movie and it deserved better.

It definitely deserved a sequel. But all the squeamish fan boys and girls didn't give it a chance and so the makers didn't give it a chance. Too bad, if you ask me.

We don't mind Lois having Superman's child. OK, maybe we do, but only when it is "Lois has Superman's child without realizing it is really Clark Kent's child." It seemed even worse because it half seemed that Lois thought it was Richard's child. So was she sleeping with two men simultaneously? Do pregnancies of half-Kryptonian children last longer than normal pregnancies? Why is Lois encouraging to Superman in the hospital, instead of saying "I only half hope you live, it will be nice to see you land in jail for rape." Or does she remember having sex with Superman? I mean, it is only sort of a sequel to SMII. So did they have a long-term sexual relationship, without him ever telling her he is really Clark and he finds out about a possibility there is a Krypton and skips town without telling his lover? That is almost worse then the memory wipe kiss.

The most sympathetic to SM situation is actually we assume Donner Cut of SMII, that he reversed time and undid most of what happened. However we also assume that even reversing time does not undo the impregnating of Lois. We still should have Lois all like "I hope you land in jail for raping me", and have him explain about reversing time, but at least he would not be a dead-beat failure.

I understand why they went the no one knows who the child is route, but they put story telling conventions over logic.

Recast Lois for sure. I don't know what they were thinking with Kate Bosworth. I did rather like Spacey in the role of Lex tho.

Kate Bosworth was 22, so what, she had a child at 17, and was already an established reporter before she exited high school? That does not work.

Now, if they had it, Superboy and Lois hooked up as teenagers, and then he heard about his home planet, and left, then at least that casting decision would have made sense. It would not have helped Superman being an irresponsible dead-beat dad, but at least the casting would have been believable. Maybe. Although with 18-year-olds often cast as 15-year-olds, we are lucky if people even see a 22-year-old as a 22-year-old.